Pages

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Planned Parenthood abortion quotas

We interrupt our regularly scheduled blogging to urge you to watch the above video from And Then There Were None.

We do not use the term "pro-abortion" lightly. We realize that some people truly are pro-choice. But with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy: If you plan an annual budget with 1,135 surgical "terminations" at $313.29 a pop, you might be pro-abortion!

When conception successfully completes, an individual human being comes into existence. Not two, not three. That individual human being may through asexual reproduction create another human being. We call that twinning.

i've heard of the possibility that embryos could merge. it's a form cannabalism. But if i eat you that doesn't mean you didn't exist before i served you up.

Pro-choice = pro-abortion because "choice" is merely an abstraction that is meaningless without mentioning what is being chosen. Abortion is the issue and instead of confronting that issue, pro-aborts hide behind euphemism such as "choice".

You lied about me so i banned you. Don't like it, you can retract your statement.

I wasn't making any point regarding chimerism but i was using an analogy to show that simply because one organism combines with another that doesn't mean that there weren't two organisms before the combining.

You want to ride an analogy in order to make me look foolish. Well, that makes you a liar. A banned liar.

It is so easy to be an anti-choice male, isn't it, Drew? You can just flap your piehole about how much medical risk some woman you've never even met should have to face, knowing full well that you will never be affected by your fiats.

My wanted pregnancy nearly killed me 28 years ago. Frankly, I have reached the point of wishing that every anti-choice male I encounter, whether on the internet or IRL, would experience just *two hours* of the hyperemesis gravidarum that I experienced for 40 weeks. Then maybe you'd stop imagining that pregnancy is all fairy farts and chocolate ice cream.

I have a 28-year-old son and a 21-year-old tubal ligation. Should said tubal ligation fail, there will be an abortion so fast that your misogynistic head will spin right off. I will not risk my life for pregnancy again.

I support the full spectrum of reproductive choices: contraception or not, gestation or termination, adoption or rearing alone or with one's partner of choice.

Let me put it another way: I think the Duggars are lunatics, but you don't see me out there trying to legislate against their right to make their own reproductive decisions via overbreeding.

PS: I was once an anti-choice dimwit like you. I used every page out of your playbook. Then, I got out of high school and into the real world, where things are not as black-and-white as people like you believe they are.

Quote from article: Human chimeras were first discovered with the advent of blood typing when it was found that some people had more than one blood type. Most of them proved to be "blood chimeras" -- non-identical twins who shared a blood supply in the uterus. Those who were not twins are thought to have blood cells from a twin that died early in gestation. Twin embryos often share a blood supply in the placenta, allowing blood stem cells to pass from one and settle in the bone marrow of the other. About 8% of non-identical twin pairs are chimeras.

I gladly admit that i learned something. And i stick by my original point that when two embryos combine, it's a form of cannibalism. But that doesn't mean that it's the exactly same as one eating the other for lunch. But it's similar in one respect, there were two organisms and now there is only one.

But rather than accept the analogy as intended, you blow it up into something it isn't. That makes you a liar.

it is a form of cannibolism. But it's not exactly the same as eating one another. You should say that i call it "a form of cannabilism" rather than saying that i think it's equivalent to one eating the other.

So you make a nonsensical statement, and upon being called on it, you 1) backpedal furiously, 2) claim it was an analogy (fyi: that's not an analogy), and 3) cry about how you're being victimized by an evil liar. You know, alternatively, you could have just said something like "Wow, yeah, that really DID sound moronic. No idea what I was thinking, but I should rephrase that!".

Main Entry: can·ni·bal·ism Pronunciation: \ˈka-nə-bə-ˌli-zəm\Function: nounDate: 17961 : the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being 2 : the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind 3 : an act of cannibalizing something— can·ni·bal·is·tic \ˌka-nə-bə-ˈlis-tik\ adjective

Since the combining of embryos has nothing to do with one chewing the other up and putting it through the digestive track, this obvious fact would make you realize that i wasn't saying anything like that. Why would you make such an unwarranted accusation? Except that you're a liar?

Google "Cannibalize". The first definition has nothing to do with eating.

"use (a machine) as a source of spare parts for another, similar machine."

You could have been reasonable and recognized that i meant something like that. But no, you had to be a jerk and a liar.

You explained your position by backpedaling and inventing alternate definitions. Life tip: Other people are not "liars" when they mock you for making a stupid statement. Nor are they "liars" for dismissing your lame attempts at justifying that statement.

Actually, parents owe their children care because they cause their children to be in need. They cause this need about 9 months before birth. That's why parental obligations begins about 9 months before birth.

You don't read very well, do you? My point, which you have deliberately overlooked, is that you (and every other anti-choice male) are demanding that women assume risks that you will never have to assume. And that makes your position pretty damned convenient, from where I sit.

Oh, and Drew? Everyone opposes baby-killing. Infanticide is a crime. If you know of anyone killing babies, call your local law enforcement agency.

An embryo is not a person. A woman, however, *is.* And I notice that you keep erasing the pregnant woman from the picture in your effort to enslave her to the contents of her uterus. Why is that, Drew?

Not everyone agrees a pregnant woman has a baby, which implies a fully sentient human being. Yes, the fetus is alive and yes, it has human DNA, but some of us just don't can't make the leap of calling it a person. I care about animals, love children, teach my kid not to crush ants for fun, recycle and try to leave the world a better place for future humans and animals. I visit my parents and grandparents, love them to pieces. BUT I have no general emotional attachments to a fetus. When MY kid was a fetus? Sure I loved him. But I know not all pregnancies are wanted. That's just a fact of life, and as long as the parents are okay with it, an abortion is a victimless. A fetus is neither innocent nor guilty, its just a ZERO.

No pro-choice means supporting ALL choices.I don't care if a woman wants to have 15 kids. I might think she is a little crazy but it is still her choice. So please allow me the same freedom to make my own choice regarding my decision to NOT have kids.

fiona64, you support baby-killing. You just pretend it is isn't baby-killing. People always pretend away the humanity of the victims to support human rights atrocities.

i didn't overlook your argument. i just pointed out that it was stupid. Your argument is "go away and shut up". That's really bringing it! Disagreement should quashed.

>>assume risks that you will never have to assume.

Virtually all pro-lifers, men and women, support life-saving medical treatment even when that treatment results in the death and removal of the unborn child. So, your nonsense about "risk" is just nonsense.

Death from pregnancy cannot be accurately predicted. The woman can bleed to death from post partum hemorrhage. So yes, you are forcing women to risk their lives - when you won't even inconvenience a man by forcing him to donate a teaspoon of blood to his child.

>>as punishmentThank you showing that you don't understand the difference between punishment and reasonable foreseeable consequences.

When you engage is an activity that has the reasonable foreseeable consequence of causing someone to be in need and the consequence happens, you become responsible to care for that person's need that you caused.

If you walk in a dangerous neighborhood, do you volunteer to getting mugged/assaulted/raped? Are you OBLIGATED to let such attacks go on without protecting yourself because "you should have known better than to walk there in the first place"?

There are facts, like fetuses have a full chromosome, that they have a heart beat etc which are indisputable. However when it comes to being a "person", this term is not fully defined. For me, its the fact that fetuses lack sentience and are still inside the mother's body, which makes me categorize them as "not a person". Its not an easy or trivial classification, and the fact that so many well meaning people who love and care about the living and the world do not necessarily see it your way, to me suggests that there is no universal moral standard here. The policy is to let the person who is most closest to the fetus, the mother, decide whether to keep or abort.

If you leave your door unlocked, are you VOLUNTEERING for squatters to come in take up residence in your home? If they do come in, are you obligated to let them stay because "you invited them by opening the door"?

As I replied to Drew, the classification of a fetus as a "person" is a murky one. Unlike observational facts, like its got a full set of chromosomes etc., how one could use a whole different set of criteria to define "person". My criteria is that fetuses are not self aware and still attached to the mother. You obviously have a different criteria. The fact that we can't all come to anything near a consensus as in a question like "it is okay to steal" to me says its not such a cut and dry issue that one answer is best for all. I think its a complex issue that the woman considering an abortion alone is qualified to make.

A mother/parent is one who loves, protects and cares for children, and always puts them first, VOLUNTARILY. NOT because some asshole forced them to. Parental responsibility can never be forced. When forcing is attempted, it's always the children who end up suffering.

Spitting out a baby doesn't make a mother. Loving & raising a child does, whether the child is biological or not.

fiona64, you are a sexist bigot. My sex is completely irrelevant to the argument. You somehow think i should shut up because i'm a man. Well, that's just idiotic. Your view: SHUT UP. Wow.

*health*, in this context, is a weasel word. In Doe v. Bolton the Supremes defined *health* to mean anything you want it to mean -- just kill your baby for any reason. So, no *health* isn't justification for removing the baby. Life is.

Fiona64, you think if women are not allowed to kill their babies that makes women walking incubators. That's misogyny.

My position is that woman are responsible moral agents. This means that they are not morons but responsible for the reasonable foreseeable consequence of their actions. They incur a debt to their children by creating those children in a dependent state. That's treating women with respect.

You have a sloppy interpretation of the 14th amendment. It makes citizenship dependent on birth. The 2nd half of section 1 is not dependent on birth but applies to all persons (such as unborn babies and illegal aliens). So, the constitution does not say you can murder unborn babies. The Supremes just made it up.

No. Abortion was made illegal way more than 70 years ago. When it could be proven that the unborn was alive, abortion was illegal. In the early to mid 1800s, it was discovered that life begins at conception so physicians moved to make abortion illegal from conception.

That's bad reasoning. If it's true that there's no way to determine who is right, you have to look at the consequences of being wrong and avoid the worst consequence. The death of an innocent baby is a worse consequence than the mother carrying the baby for 9 months.

If you caused the mugger to need your wallet (i'm trying to picture this), you are responsible to supply him with your wallet. Walking through a dangerous neighborhood in no way causes the mugger to need your wallet.

>>Taking an action doesn't automatically bind you to all of it's CONSEQUENCES

You may have a point here but I'm not making such a global claim. My claim is more limited. If you cause someone to be in need -- like hitting with your car (assuming you're at fault) -- then you're responsible to care for that need.

If you caused the squatters to need to be in your house, then you owe them the use of your house.

Leaving the door unlocked doesn't cause squatters to enter your house. They have will that they exercised in a bad way that was not caused by your action. Furthermore, leaving the door unlocked in no way causes squatters to need to be in your house. But if did (which is absurd, since there appears to be no reasonable cause and effect), then yes you would be obligated to provide them with your house.

Once again, you assume the zef NEEDS to continue its life. Wrong assumption.

Every living being ever conceived is NOT designed to live. Only those faced with favorable conditions get to live. Otherwise this planet would be hell-hole with no standing room & everyone eating each other.

Saying that women were 'designed for pregnancy' and that therefore, they must gestate, and that since men were *not* designed to gestate, that men should *not* be forced to donate their bodies to preserve fetal life is in fact a roundabout way of saying 'biology = destiny" yes.

In case you haven't noticed, the world is full of shades of grey. There are many instances where there IS NO WAY to determine who is right and who is wrong. Circumstance plays a big part in things. To me, ending a pregnancy while it is a clump of cells with a still non-functioning central nervous system would be preferable to giving birth if I were a woman on welfare or a student pursuing her degree in a highly demanding field. Terminate while the fetus doesn't even know its being terminated. There is no winner but no loser either. If you were in the same situation and wanted to prioritize your fetus, by all means that is your choice.

So it's okay with you if a mother chooses to hire an unethical doctor to torture her unborn child in utero? (Say, if she was mad at the bio father and wanted to screw with him.) That's perfectly kosher, in your book?

>> When you engage is an activity that has the reasonable foreseeable consequence of causing someone to be in need and the consequence happens, you become responsible to care for that person's need that you caused.

I agree with this statement. But I also agree that abortion (of a potential person who has not yet developed fear, regret or any emotions) is a responsible choice a woman can make.

Many, MANY people are in automobile accidents who were not driving recklessly. By driving a car, you assume the risk that you may be in an accident. That accident may or may not be your fault. But you don't have to live with the results of your actions merely because you choose to drive.

I'm taking your logic to its natural conclusion. If a parent "owes nothing" to a human being who is in the z/e/f stage of development, then it must be okay to torture that child in utero, right? Do you think that's acceptable for a parent to do?

Actually no it is NOT "misogynist." By your "logic" a woman who is incapable of pregnancy is "defective" or if she seeks sterilization surgery to keep herself from becoming pregnant, she is a misogynist. Neither one is true. Childbirth is not to be interpreted by ignorant males as a raison d'etre for females.

LOL. You're very funny. Never took a logic class, did you? You have to look at the consequences of being wrong and avoid the worst consequence? LOL. Congratulations. You just put us back in the Stone Age. Every human advancement and innovation has had a distinct possibility of being wrong, and resulting in bad consequences. Let's just start with medicine and move on from there.

No, it's an IMPOSSIBLE scenario. I don't even know where you dreamed up this "in utero torturing" nonsense, and frankly, I don't want to know. But it's not possible to torture in utero. And YES, nothing is "owed" to a zef.

Yes, you pretty much DID say that biology was destiny, and having sex while female is a de facto fault situation, and a few other wholly unappealing inferences that can be drawn from that smarmy, misogynistic algorithm.

Practically: Considering the zef is non-sentient through the major part of gestation, and the woman is always more sentient than the zef, such a procedure is bound to cause more physical pain to her than the zef. Now why would anyone choose to go through that? It will be far more practical to give birth first & torture the child, as many forced-birthers tend to do. :)

Fetal surgery has nothing to do with what you asked. Now you are asking me if I believe women who *choose* to carry to term should be drinking, smoking or taking "hard drugs." Drinking is legal over age 21 and smoking is legal over age 18. Binge drinking and smoking aren't healthy for anyone, but they are legal adult activities. I'm generally suspicious of laws that purport to make a "special class" of any type of person (in this case a pregnant person) in order to strip them of rights. Yes, pregnant women have as much right to drink and smoke as anyone else. And they ALSO have the right to any lawfully obtained and needed drugs as anyone else. While pregnant with my daughter, I had an atrocious sinus infection to the point where I was in so much pain I could literally not function. I had to fight with my obstetrician for antibiotics. THAT'S TORTURE OF ME, for an entire month, with no reasonable explanation other than being pregnant. Frankly I was in so much pain I didn't care. I just wanted the pain gone. No, I do not think drugs ought to be denied to women because they are pregnant. Nor am I entirely sold on the harm of smoking and light to moderate drinking while pregnant. I believe it to be overblown. If you choose to carry a pregnancy, I believe you should look after your health. That doesn't extend to personal suffering for the sake of a fetus. Generations were just fine with the "moderation in all things" type of common sense that prevailed when our mothers were carrying us. Nothing has changed my mind.

Re: motive. Perhaps the woman (who is bat-shit crazy) found out her husband cheated on her and wants some form of twisted revenge. Perhaps she is mentally ill and thinks the child inside of her needs to be punished for some reason. Etc., etc.

It doesn't necessarily have to cause physical pain to her. For example, she could use meth or heroin, both of which might be pleasurable for her but very harmful to the baby. Or she could sit in a hot tub for a lengthy span of time. Again, pleasurable for her, but not so for the baby. (The reason pregnant women can't sit in hot tubs is because a baby could literally boil alive in in the amniotic fluid.)

You "owe nothing" to a homeless guy, but you don't have the right to kill him, correct? Wouldn't that also follow for an unborn child? You could "owe nothing" to an unborn child, but if s/he is a human being with the right to life, you shouldn't have the right to kill him/her.

And even then, it is likely that the fetus is indeed sedated and anaesthetized whilst in utero.

Take a look at this, for example:

http://westminsterprego.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/amnioticsac.jpg

A baby born within the amniotic sac. Why isn't it awake and crying? Birth can be pretty traumatic, and getting your head crushed as it is shoved through a tiny opening can't be pleasant. So why is it not up and crying in pain?

Boy, are you ever stupid. I didn't say it happened 70 years ago, I said it was only illegal for about 70 years. And yes, it was indeed because of the male physicians. Crack a friggin' book, Drew ... http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft967nb5z5&chunk.id=d0e1742&toc.id=d0e1742&brand=ucpress

Calling a choice about whether or not to gestate a pregnancy a medical decision is factually accurate. What *is* misogynist is your patronizing belief that women are too stupid to know their own circumstances and thus make that call without help from some random internet dude who thinks he knows what is best for strangers ... and who knows full well that he will never have to deal with the consequences of what he advocates.

Any motive that involves "revenge" (or any form of intentional suffering to another individual) is obviously not ethically acceptable. As I said in my other post, intentionally causing harm is entirely different from having no obligation.

Claims about hot tubs have to be false, considering the internal body temperature would NEVER go up-to "boiling". If it did, proteins will denature and the woman would die too, not just the fetus. i.e. No one would be able to sit in a hot tub, not just a pregnant woman.

Drug use while pregnant is not advisable NOT due to "torture of the zef" but due to potential adverse effects on the FUTURE CHILD. The zef in its current state feels little if anything, and cannot be "tortured" by drugs or alcohol. If the woman plans to have the baby, then she has a duty to avoid things that are potentially harmful to the FUTURE child. If she plans to abort, she may take as many drugs as she wants, as the zef won't feel anything and there's no child to be harmed in the future.

The death of an innocent baby is a worse consequence than the mother carrying the baby for 9 months.

As has already been explained to you inexcruciating detail, an embryo is not "an innocent baby." It is an unconscious entity and, as such, it is incapable of either guilt or innocence.

You cheerfully assign medical risk to some random woman, knowing that you will never have to assume in.. Pregnancy is NOT a state of wellness. The US is #50 in maternal mortality, with countries like *Bulgaria* doing better at keeping pregnant women alive than we do.

And that's to say nothing whatsoever of the permanent changes to a woman's physiology that happen with every pregnancy. Each pregnancy creates striations on the pubic symphysis; a forensic anthropologist can look at skeletal remains and tell how many times a woman was pregnant by those marks. With each subsequent pregnancy, the pubic symphysis remains more disconnected than the last. I have a friend who, after having five children, as pubic symphysis diastasis so bad that her gait is affected and she cannot ride a bike.

And that's to say nothing of how gestational diabetes can convert to permanent type II, or how gestational carpal tunnel can become permanent ... or a whole slew of other common risks that come with pregnancy. And you just flap your cakehole about how women are "obligated," by virtue of being life support systems for a uterus, to take these risks (and a host of others) ... knowing you'll never be affected.

I mean, acknowledging that women have the right to self-determination, and are not mere objects to be used for the benefits of a third party is so totes woman-hating!

It's just another dog whistle. Like the southern racists who whine that the REAL racists are the people who try to help minorities, since after all, being owned and forced to pick cotton until you die gave the blacks something to be proud of!

Dumbfuck, there is NO WAY to predict what problems a pregnancy will cause. I had hyperemesis gravidarum for 40 weeks and nearly died. There is no way to predict that or test for it. And do you know what causes that? PREGNANCY (you know, that whole gravidarum business).

In other words, prior to 35 weeks gestation, fetuses cannot experience pain - they only react mindlessly, to various stimuli.

We show a transition in brain response following tactile and noxious stimulation from nonspecific, evenly dispersed neuronal bursts to modality-specific, localized, evoked potentials. The results suggest that specific neural circuits necessary for discrimination between touch and nociception emerge from 35–37 weeks gestation in the human brain.

Not sure what your image of an infant in the caul is supposed to prove...? The amniotic sac is very strong and serves to protect the baby, so it's not surprising that s/he was not "traumatized" by the birth process.

So if I wrap you in bubble wrap and feed you to an anaconda you shouldn't feel a thing?

If I freely consent to sex before, during, AND after the act, it's not rape. But rape =/= pregnancy. Are you saying that an unborn child has to ask his/her mother for consent before implanting in the uterus? How would that work, exactly?

No. I'm not sure how you got any of the above from what I said, which is that pregnancy is not analgous to rape. Pregnancy is a natural biological process. Rape is not. And again, if you are being forced to rape others without your consent, I encourage you to call the authorities.

You originally compared abortion to randomly killing a homeless man. *facepalm*

If anything is inside your body without your consent, you have the right to remove it. That includes homeless men, nematode worms and zefs. Even if you initially consented to the use of your body, it becomes a violation when whatever is occupying your body refuses to leave. Consent is always revokable. It is not perpetually ongoing.

And sweetie, rape is all natural. Rape is a long standing reproductive strategy utilized by males of the species to pass along their genes without expending resources on the future child.